I am not surprised.. DSP was never a favorite of anyone in my class.. It is difficult find people who like Fourier series..The current Radar on LCA (the modified 2032) is a kick-ass piece in both modes. But the signal processing is Israeli onlee. As I hear, one of the reasons why the yindoo signal processor was replaced with yehudi one was the poor A2G performance. Essentially too much clutter.
I don't know if the production agency has been identified as yet for the Uttam Aesa. Till the development is complete, nothing will move.JayS wrote:Dileep Saar, are we starting to productionise Uttam now..? If not, what is stopping us..?? SW issues can be worked out in parallel and even after induction. Would Uttam need tweaks at HW level now..?? If yes, can the changes be managed in the form of modular design, so that we get on with the long lead items while those particular HW modules are still fine tuned. How much time would be needed for starting serial production..?? If they are expecting it to finish certification in 2-3yrs timeframe, the production line should have been starting to warm up now itself. The long lead items are the ones which are frozen on priority and component level Mfg drawings are released. I never understood this production-go-ahead thinggy we have in our domestic MIC.Dileep wrote:Yes, a lot of stuff is ready for MK1A and also getting back ported to Mk1. But the cockpit avionics of MK1A will 'look' the same, ie three 5X5 MFDs.
I also heard that Uttam A2A mode is excellent. But A2G was not so. The 'opinion' of my source is that LRDE used to say "Oh.. we know A2G very well onlee" and the results surprised them.
The MK1A will have 5x5 SMFDs which is an upgrade over MK1 itself as I understand. Its perfectly fine to keep it that way.
Nethra has A2G modes?mody wrote:Even for the Netra AEW, the air to ground modes took the longest to develop.
Program level details need not be kept secrete for any projects other than classified projects. The technical and other key details can be redacted from public disclosures easily. We still live in communist era in this matter. And on the other hand some of the DRDO labs are happily releasing crucial drawaings in various tenders.Dileep wrote:I once got a chirp that Uttam is entering LSP, but no further information came. They are currently have an EoI running for technology transfer for the TX/RX modules. The pictures do not match that of Uttam modules we saw at Aero India.
LRDE is rightly very secretive organization, so information is difficult to come by. But I am pretty sure we will hear when they are ready for production.
Apart from BEL and Astra, who are the likely candidates..??? In this short list too, BEL is most likely, with Astra getting some modules.mody wrote:
I don't know if the production agency has been identified as yet for the Uttam Aesa. Till the development is complete, nothing will move.
The sad reality of Indian defence production. Maybe Dileep would have better info.
IR, I am aware of that, but I do recall that one of the trainers was basically handed over to No.45 Squadron for its training activities. Nevertheless, I was hoping for actual exercises with the single seaters of No.45 Squadron rather than a familiarization flight for a Russian pilot.Indranil wrote:Kartik,
Trainers for the IAF have not been built yet! The trainers are with NFTC. drawings have been released to HAL in June last year.
Mk1A will have three 5X5 screens.
As usual, great post. Makes it a lot clearer for me.Karan M wrote:Uttam is to be made by BEL. TRM modules were made by both Astra and BEL. They are also being made for several other programs.
Regarding no further hardware changes, can't say that easily. Tests will refine hardware and software.
About A2G modes - people keep forgetting the XV-2004 radar. It was used to develop A2S modes (which see the highest clutter) with SAR/ISAR for the Navy's chopper and D0-228 installation mix. Same was leveraged for AEW&CS program, which again was to feature both A2A and A2S modes.
Furthermore, A2G software has been developed for a SAR radar developed for UAV application.
This is the reason why LRDE was so confident about A2G. However, the relative speed matters. The algorithm which worked at x speed won't if the speed is several times higher, or will show up issues where minor issues with platform stabilization cause problems.
This is also why your hardware and software both may need tweaking. You may end up realizing you are consuming far more cycles of a far more computationally intensive algo, and the entire programmable signal processor needs to be redesigned for higher performance.
Remember, in an AESA radar you are talking of near simultaneous interleaved modes - this places far more strain on the PSP than just the Mech radar where you alternate between modes in a more graduated fashion.
So I wouldn't expect, with our budget, for a dozen Uttams to be flying but more like 2-3 which will be run through a lot of tests, constantly modified, tweaked and then a LSP then a SP build cleared.
What do you mean?Cybaru wrote:What is the process of adding new larger external fuel tanks to LCA like?
Not on the centerline. There is length limitation. In the front can't go past nose wheel. At the back can't go back too far where tank will scrape runway during takeoff.Cybaru wrote: Any work on adding a larger 2000 liter centerline tank on Tejas?
Neither of them are. LCA cannot be go supersonic with 2X800/1200 ltr tanks. They are developing larger supersonic DT for the centerline with oval cross section.Cybaru wrote: Are both the 800 and 1200 liters supersonic rated?
The trainer was never handed over. As you know they are co located and. The daggers use the trainer whenever required.Kartik wrote:IR, I am aware of that, but I do recall that one of the trainers was basically handed over to No.45 Squadron for its training activities. Nevertheless, I was hoping for actual exercises with the single seaters of No.45 Squadron rather than a familiarization flight for a Russian pilot.
Saar from memory those are pylons that can either support a ATFLIR or a LANTIRN type of pod solution for with laser designator or support a armaan solution on the rhino but also on the original hornetIndranil wrote:Love the pylon on the F-18. Never noticed it before. Can somebody shed more light onto this pylon.
India is likely to finalise the INR 40,000 crore contract for 83 Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas jets, 20% cheaper from previously quoted price, next February at DefExpo-2020 event in Lucknow city, Uttar Pradesh state.
In November 2016, Defense Acquisition Council (DAC), India's highest decision-making body on procurement, approved purchase of Tejas Mark-1A fighters by the IAF at a cost of Rs 50,025 crore.
Subsequent negotiations between defense ministry, Indian Air Force (IAF) and manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has helped bring down the price of the jets from INR 50,025 crore to INR 40,000 crore, Indian media reported late last week.
"The draft contract of the deal has been readied by the HAL and the cost of the deal has now come down to around Rs 40,000 crore. This is Rs 10,000 crore less than the Acceptance of Necessity given by the Defense Ministry in 2016," defense sources said.:
:
:
:
I had replied earlier. May have been lost in the clutter. In equipping phase. Should be flying in a month or so.Kartik wrote:Indranil, any update on SP-21first flight?
So they're 3 months delayed already on the earlier mentioned October first flight date for SP-21.Indranil wrote:I had replied earlier. May have been lost in the clutter. In equipping phase. Should be flying in a month or so.Kartik wrote:Indranil, any update on SP-21first flight?
Jay, this is no longer acceptable. They're competing against the likes of Boeing and Dassault, which are delivering their airplanes on time or even ahead of schedule. Now, there is a clear requirement for hundreds of HAL built LCA and MWF fighters and yet HAL seems to give IAF and its critics the ammo to criticize its non-adherence to schedules.JayS wrote:2-3 months delay for First article is OK. I always expected that much. They can cover it later.
HAL has habit of slogging at the end of FY. So they may still manage 3-4 aircrafts before March end. Lets see.
I think the 2 Rafale squadrons, 5 S400s and 2 Tejas Mk1 squadrons have relieved the IAF for the time-being...nam wrote:I don't think anyone is really serious about sqd numbers.
That is true, however we need LCA in numbers. IAF could have continued FOC production with upgrade to Mk1A once available.LakshmanPST wrote:I think the 2 Rafale squadrons, 5 S400s and 2 Tejas Mk1 squadrons have relieved the IAF for the time-being...nam wrote:I don't think anyone is really serious about sqd numbers.
The defence ministry needs to step in somewhere and clear the clutter in terms of additional Tejas orders, which can always be upgraded later. Keeping the line idle would be borderline criminal wastage IP.nam wrote:What is the point of on time or early delivery of FoC, when the line will be idle for 1 to 2 years after the end of the delivery, till Mk1A starts production?
We have IAF on one end, which does not order FOC in numbers and wants to wait for better version and is ready to fly Mig21 till it arrives.
On the order side, we have HAL.. less said the better.
And everyone is screaming about falling sqd numbers and Mig21. I don't think anyone is really serious about sqd numbers.
There has been no deliveries in the past 9 months of IOC version. No one gave a toss. The IOC could have updated to FOC/MK1A as well.Nihat wrote: The defence ministry needs to step in somewhere and clear the clutter in terms of additional Tejas orders, which can always be upgraded later. Keeping the line idle would be borderline criminal wastage IP.
IMO, its OK for Slight delays on first article. Small delay now can be absorbed over next 1.5yrs. We do not have exact idea how many changes are there from IOC to FOC. Things are too fluid and IOC SOP was frozen in 2015. Better to take a bit more time and set all processes properly, than to hurry and end up having a crash. The issue with LCA is that HAL has little control over the configuration. The risk management to maintain time and cost has to be the integral part of the program management itself. I'm sure you have noticed by now that we still do not have hard- nosed program management that OEMs like Boeing have. We are pushing too many changes constantly. Had Boeing been making LCA they would never have entertained so many change requests from IAF or ADA, as MFG agency. We have a unique hybrid system currently. Also, Whenever you have a new Baseline or configuration it disturbs the MFG rhythm. A lot of changes and relook at processes are scheduled at such events. Its take a while to set everything in order and get back to rhythm. Thats why ordering too small batches introduce delays. We cannot expect HAL to directly resume from where they left at the end of IOC batch. Ideally the production should not have waited for final FOC production go-ahead, the FOC config frozen much before actual FOC is planned, so production can smoothly switch from IOC to FOC batch without such long gap. But HAL alone has no control on it. We did start production early, could habe been even earlier. I dont think in Western system there is such thing as Production go-ahead. A particular config is frozen for certification and its certified from certifying agency. The OEM controls when and how to manage production in order to keep delivery commitments.Kartik wrote:Jay, this is no longer acceptable. They're competing against the likes of Boeing and Dassault, which are delivering their airplanes on time or even ahead of schedule. Now, there is a clear requirement for hundreds of HAL built LCA and MWF fighters and yet HAL seems to give IAF and its critics the ammo to criticize its non-adherence to schedules.JayS wrote:2-3 months delay for First article is OK. I always expected that much. They can cover it later.
HAL has habit of slogging at the end of FY. So they may still manage 3-4 aircrafts before March end. Lets see.
Earlier we all used to crib about the IAF not committing to enough numbers to justify speeding up production, but that is no longer the case.